Navigation

Galactic

Three years have now passed since publication of the book Quasars and Pulsars in which a detailed explanation of the existence and properties of the quasars was derived by pure reasoning from the properties of space and time as postulated in what is known as the Reciprocal System of physical theory. In the meantime further observations of these objects have been made, hypotheses and conjectures of all sorts and descriptions have been proposed, tested and discarded, and the astronomers and others concerned have had additional time to assess the significance of the various bits of knowledge that have been accumulated, and to weigh the attempts at explanation of the phenomena more carefully. It would appear, therefore, that it is now in order to take a look at the question as to how well the theory outlined in Quasars and Pulsars has been able to cope with the new information developed during the three year period, and where this theory now stands in comparison with the more conventional views of the subject matter.

Here in this diagram, reproduced from D. B. Larson’s book Quasars and Pulsars, is the evidence that confirms the reality of Halton Arp’s “associations” of quasars with other astronomical objects, and thereby not only provides a conclusive answer to the hotly debated question as to where the quasars are located, but also opens the door to a solution of the whole “quasar mystery”.

Recent advances in techniques and equipment for x-ray observation of astronomical objects have resulted in the accumulation of enough information to enable checking the general nature of the observational results against the theoretical picture derived from development of the consequences of the postulates of the Reciprocal System of physical theory, the RS theory, we will call it for convenience. X-rays can, of course, be produced in relatively small quantities by a number of different processes, but the RS theoretical development indicates that the source of the very strong radiation in this frequency range that is generated in astronomical objects is radioactivity from matter which has reverted to speeds below unity (the speed of light) after having remained at a higher speed long enough to attain isotopic stability at the ultra-high speed.

But as a scientist, or a philosopher, you are vitally concerned with the foundations of science, and the task of providing an explanation of the quasars is the great test that the basic laws and theories of physical science are today being called upon to meet: a test in which they are failing badly. Indeed, they are so helpless in the face of this challenge that prominent astronomers are finding it necessary to call for a “radical revision” of existing ideas. Under these circumstances it is highly significant that there is an available system of physical theory that can meet this crucial test; one which can furnish a comprehensive and consistent explanation of the quasars and associated phenomena—galactic explosions, pulsars, white dwarf stars, the recession of the galaxies, and so on.

From the very beginning of the kind of disciplined thinking about the physical world that we now call science, one of the major objectives has been to identify its basic constituent, or constituents; to answer the question, What is the world made of? The earliest theories of which we have detailed knowledge, those developed by the Ionians in the years from about 600 to about 400 B.C., and by the Chinese around the same time, were of two general types. One group of philosophers, reasoning from an assumption as to the unity of nature, argued for a single constituent. Water was the usual choice, although there was some support for air. Another group contended that the great multiplicity of physical forms required the existence of a number of basic constituents. The most popular choice among the early investigators in the West was a four-element universe, constructed of earth, water, air, and fire, an identification that achieved a kind of an official status when it was accepted by Aristotle. The Chinese recognized five basic elements, omitting air and adding metal and wood.

Transcript of Mr. Larson’s address to the Seventh Annual Convention of the International Society of Unified Science in Philadelphia, on August 13, 1982.

For the past two years, I have been spending all of the time that I could make available for the purpose of the preparation of additional volumes of the revised edition of my first book, The Structure of the Physical Universe. As I think most of you know, the first volume of that revised edition has already been published with a separate title of Nothing But Motion, and I am now working on the next two volumes, concentrating mainly on volume III, which will probably be completed and published ahead of volume II. That may seem like the wrong way of going about it, and perhaps it is, but there are good reasons for it, which I won’t go into now.

Articles:

Today, three centuries after Newton, gravitation is still one of the enigmas of science. "It may well be the most fundamental and least understood of the interactions," says Robert H. Dicke. In all of the efforts that have been made to formulate a unified physical theory the big challenge has always been to bring gravitation within the theoretical framework. One of the most basic problems is to define the nature of the phenomenon. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the theory that is currently accepted (often with some reservations), gravitation is equivalent to a motion. This assertion implies that, while it has some of the characteristics of motion, it is actually not a motion. The objective of the present discussion is to examine the validity of this conclusion.